Not just the less than stellar Lw leadership, there is still that stretch of dark blue-green stuff that had to be crossed if Britain was to be knocked out.
What airplane could have turned the tide of the war?
- Thread starter ClayO
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Not just the less than stellar Lw leadership, there is still that stretch of dark blue-green stuff that had to be crossed if Britain was to be knocked out.
Kevin J
Banned
Alternately, deploy the He 112B with a DB 601 engine as it has a better range.
Any numbers to back that up?
Kevin J
Banned
Wikipedia unfortunately. IIRC the Bf 109 was cheaper to produce.
He 112B carried 230 kg of fuel, or 2 x 101L in wings and 115 under the pilot = 317L. It will indeed handily out-range the Bf 109B that carried 177 kg of fuel (= 235L), OTOH the Bf 109E received a bigger fuel tank for 400L of fuel.
Provided that we have the Daimerized He 112 that has, say, extra 150L of fuel in internal tanks, it will indeed be a much more useful fighter for the Luftwaffe than the Bf 109 of the 1st half of war. And, atop of that, a fighter that Germany can actually afford.
Provided that we have the Daimerized He 112 that has, say, extra 150L of fuel in internal tanks, it will indeed be a much more useful fighter for the Luftwaffe than the Bf 109 of the 1st half of war. And, atop of that, a fighter that Germany can actually afford.
Conslaw
Senior Airman
While "turning the tide of the war" might be too strong, if the A-26 invader had been available in quantities by early 1944, as would have been possible had its development not been such a start-stop affair, medium bombers could have had a much greater impact on the war. Also, if the Mosquito had been built in much greater quantities, its impact as a bomber and fighter-bomber would have been greater, with daylight and nighttime intruder bombing disrupting German activities even more than they historically were.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Was that with the Do 19 or Ju 89? 4 engine heavy bomber?
1943 is not 1936.
For most of the war, the best available American fighter was the P-40. I believe had America been more hands on and produced more modern fighters in the 1930s then things could have been better.
In many ways, the USA, USSR, France and Italy maybe Japan could have produced a Spitfire/109 equivalent in the same time frames as the 109.
Aircraft like the P-40 and the D. 520 flew 2 years too late.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
In reality it was with twin engine bombers.
The 4 engine German bomber in 1940-41 is a myth. Just because you have 4 engines doesn't mean you have B-17 or a Lancaster (or even a Halifax).
You have four 1940-41 engines and not 1942-43 engines.
the 1940-41 engines are several hundred HP each down on power from 1942-43 engines.
Even for the Halifax only first dozen or 20 planes had Merlin X engines and the later ones got the Merlin XX engines.
A German 4 engine bomber using DB 601 As or early Jumo 211s (the under 1200hp ones ) would not have been the threat that many people think of when they say 4 engine german bomber. You would also have about 1/2 as many 4 engine bombers without massive changes in German engine and airframe production capability.
This goes back to when the war started
for the US the P-40 was best fighter available in quantity in 1942 and early 1943, which is not most of the war for the Americans. The P-38 showed up small quantities not long after the P-40E and by 1943 the numbers of aircraft were flipping, the US built more P-47s in 1943 than P-40s, and built almost 2500 P-38s. There more R-2800 powered Navy fighters built in 1943 than P-40s. Development history is tough, American fighters in the 1930s were about as good as most other countries, there just weren't very many of them and the production facilities were therefore not large. P-36A vs Bf 109B anyone? P-35 vs Ms 406? So much depended on engines (and fuel).
The US was building longer ranged planes than the 109, not long enough for bomber escort but longer ranged than european aircraft.
Or the 109 flew two years too early, It worked as a defensive fighter in 1943-44 but flip it. give the US 1000 109G-6s in 1943 and see what effect it would have on the bombing campaign. The 109 was short ranged and lacking in armement.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
American fighters by their nature have to be longer ranged due to the greater American landmass. Although your point of the Me 109 or Spitfire not matching American requirements as an escort fighter are valid.
My point would be however that an American 109 or Spitfire type would have been widely exported in say 1939/1940 era to allied countries in Europe giving them a first class fighter. When did the Americans have a fighter equal to the Spitfire? Probs 1943.
I do declare that had America been kicking ass and taking names from 1936 onwards and stationed powerful forces in UK and France then even Hitler wouldn't have invaded the rest of Europe.
Although a very aggressive building policy in 1936 could have meant some very obsolete aircraft. Short ranged and poorly armed. But maybe they were aircraft better not built.
My point would be however that an American 109 or Spitfire type would have been widely exported in say 1939/1940 era to allied countries in Europe giving them a first class fighter. When did the Americans have a fighter equal to the Spitfire? Probs 1943.
I do declare that had America been kicking ass and taking names from 1936 onwards and stationed powerful forces in UK and France then even Hitler wouldn't have invaded the rest of Europe.
Although a very aggressive building policy in 1936 could have meant some very obsolete aircraft. Short ranged and poorly armed. But maybe they were aircraft better not built.
A dozen squadrons of Hurricanes or better yet Spitfires based in Singapore along with 6-8 squadrons of Hawker Henley dive bombers, with appropriate infrastructure such as radar, all doable by the end of 1941, along with some decent leadership, AVM Keith Park to the rescue again?, might well have stopped the whole Singapore/NEI debacle happening.
(edited to correct the name of the Henley from Hendon. )
(edited to correct the name of the Henley from Hendon.
)
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
An adequately sized air force would be a good start point.there was a lack of fighters, we were sending our surplus Hurricanes and P-40's to the USSR, the latter to the AVG. The Mohawk IV was available. More carriers were needed. We lost Repulse and the Prince of Wales due to lack of fighter cover. We had abandoned our 3 ocean navy in the Washington Naval Treaty. There was a lack of transports, no way of helping our army fight it's way out of encirclement. We built lots of bombers but very few transports. Lots of Blenheim's and Hampdens, very few Bombays and Harrows. Only one Fortress city, Singapore, not lots.
Barrett
Senior Airman
Sidebar: discussion of the 262 as a potential game changer reminds me that tactics rather than hardware should be considered. I had Johannes Steinhoff on two symposia and, being a Gunnery Guy, asked him about the best way to tackle Viermots. Specifically, I asked if the GAF considered using the overhead gunnery run rather than the company-front 12 o'clock method. He said that the overhead was known to the GAF, and it had the advantage of (1) presenting a bigger target and (2) was far more difficult to defend against. But the Germans lacked the fuel and time to train large numbers of pilots in the overhead.
Told him that a late war interview with Jimmy Thach concluded that if the Luftwaffe had employed the USN overhead, daylight bombing likely would've ended in 43.
Told him that a late war interview with Jimmy Thach concluded that if the Luftwaffe had employed the USN overhead, daylight bombing likely would've ended in 43.
I appreciate I somewhat over simplified things, I work better like that.
My basic premise is enough fighters & dive bombers, prevent the Japanese landings in Northern Malaya & provided support to army units mopping up the stragglers that managed to land. Fighters also give air cover to PoW & Repulse so land based bombers & torpedo bombers unable to close with them. Japanese invasion has failed, Dutch East Indies provides defence in depth, Palembang oil fields cannot provide oil to Japan, Singapore provides a secure base for Allied Forces to take battle back to Japanese forces. Enough forethought could well have provided the breathing space necessary to replenish & reinforce enabling effective resistance against an enemy whose offensive capacity has been severely blunted. Something like that anyway. I've long thought that the RAF's refusal to embrace dive bombing rather than buying heaps of fairly useless Battles & Blenheims cost them hugely early on in Europe & SE Asia.Kevin J
Banned
It needed to make all the Straits Settlements fortress cities to enable retreat after encirclement at the beaches. Transport aircraft to enable resupply. The Lysander would be okay for nighttime close air support, as for dive bombers maybe the Cleveland or Vindicator.I appreciate I somewhat over simplified things, I work better like that.
Admiral Beez
Captain
Let's not forget the French. With a better procurement strategy focused on a single type for each role, the French air force might have been much better positioned to counter the Germans.
Focus exclusively on the Dewoitine D.520 (Jan 1937 specified by government, Oct 1938 first flight, first production fight Nov 1939). During this same period the Morane-Saulnier, Bloch and Arsenal were also developing and producing fighters. Hard stop all other production and design work. Produce as many of the earlier Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 as possible until the D.520 is ready, and then switch all fighter production to the D.520. Focus on expediting the D.520, instead of taking two years from Specification to Production.
Same goes for bombers, pick the best one, make loads of it.
Focus exclusively on the Dewoitine D.520 (Jan 1937 specified by government, Oct 1938 first flight, first production fight Nov 1939). During this same period the Morane-Saulnier, Bloch and Arsenal were also developing and producing fighters. Hard stop all other production and design work. Produce as many of the earlier Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 as possible until the D.520 is ready, and then switch all fighter production to the D.520. Focus on expediting the D.520, instead of taking two years from Specification to Production.
Same goes for bombers, pick the best one, make loads of it.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Keep in mind that by 1936, the US had the P-36, which first flew in 1935 and had comparable performance as the Hurricane and Bf109.
If the US went to war in the mid/late 30's, it would have simply pushed the US out of the depression and ramped up it's aircraft development sooner (instead of late '41, early '42).
Dave - seems like the P-36 was introduced in 1938, not 1936?
BTW, Wikipedia wants us to believe this cr@p about the P-36:
The lack of an engine supercharger was a serious handicap at high altitudes.
No supercharger?? Anyone care to edit that?
- Thread starter
- #59
Enough 262's to hold off the RAF, USAAF and the Soviet army would have been a whole lot of airplanes. Best case, they stretch the war out 2 or 3 months, long enough to be the target of the first atomic bomb. Not a good outcome either way.
Ju 88 and He 111, of course.
Sorry, I don't understand the reference to 1936.
I base my suggestion on the initial message of the topic starter. "what airplane could have turned the tide of the war, but didn't, because it didn't exist " Prerequisites and conditions of the existence of such airplane is another matter.
